InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
10th Circuit says materiality is determined through the perspective of the “reasonable consumer”
On August 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal of an FDCPA action, concluding that an alleged false or misleading communication must be material in order to be considered a violation of the statute, and that materiality is determined through the perspective of the “reasonable consumer.” The plaintiff, a student loan debtor, alleged that he received a letter attempting to collect on debt from the defendant. The defaulted debt in question had been sold to a federal student-loan guaranty agency (creditor), which contracted with the defendant to collect the debt. According to the plaintiff, the letter appeared as if it were sent by the creditor, primarily because the letter displayed the guaranty agency’s name and logo instead of the defendant’s own information. According to the plaintiff, the letter violated several sections of the FDCPA, which prohibit the use of false representations or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer and require a debt collector to use their “true name.” The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, ruling that the letter in question was not misleading and that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant used materially misleading, unfair, or unconscionable means to collect the debt.
On appeal, the 10th Circuit held that “a reasonable consumer would not be misled,” because the letter (i) identifies the creditor as “the holder of a defaulted federally insured student loan”; (ii) states that the letter “is an attempt, by a debt collector, to collect a debt”; and (iii) clarifies that the defendant “is assisting [the creditor] with administrative activities associated with this administrative wage garnishment.” Moreover, “[e]ven assuming a reasonable consumer would believe [the creditor] and not [the defendant] sent the letter, [the plaintiff] fails to demonstrate how that would frustrate the reasonable consumer’s ability to respond intelligently,” the appellate court wrote.
In its determination, the 10th Circuit also considered differences related to the “least sophisticated consumer” and a “reasonable consumer” in determining how materiality should be measured. According to the appellate court, even the courts that apply the least sophisticated consumer standard tend to agree that the consumer’s interpretation must be reasonable, thereby incorporating aspects of the reasonable consumer standard. The 10th Circuit pointed out that while many courts have referenced the “least sophisticated consumer” in their rulings, few actually use that perspective. “In applying the least sophisticated consumer standard, courts typically begin by noting the least sophisticated consumer is not an expert but then quickly explain he is not actually the least sophisticated consumer,” the 10th Circuit said, adding that “[i]n reality, the nebulous least sophisticated consumer standard is simply a misnomer. A few circuits, recognizing problems with the least sophisticated consumer standard, instead look to the ‘unsophisticated consumer.’” The appellate court concluded that, assuming “the reasonable consumer would read a communication in its entirety and make sense of a communication by assessing it as a whole and in its context,” no reasonable consumer would have been materially misled.
FTC charges healthcare company with fraud
On August 8, the FTC announced it has taken action against a healthcare company, two subsidiaries, and the former CEO and former vice president of sales (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly misleading consumers about their health insurance plans and using deceptive lead generation websites. According to the complaint, the defendants, along with their third-party partners, allegedly engaged in deceptive sales practices in violation of the FTC Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and the Restore Online Shoppers Confidence Act (ROSCA). These practices included allegedly (i) lying to consumers about the nature of their healthcare plans; (ii) bundling and charging junk fees for unwanted products that were typically not clearly disclosed (consumers were often charged for these additional products after they cancelled their core healthcare plans); and (iii) making it difficult for consumers to cancel their plans. The FTC further alleged that the company (which sells association memberships and other healthcare-related products to consumers, often through telemarketing companies and lead generators), as well as the former CEO and former vice president of sales, were aware of the agents’ misconduct but allegedly “took steps to disguise and further the deception” instead of stopping the deceptive practices.
The FTC stated that the company and two of its subsidiaries have agreed to a proposed court order, which requires the payment of $100 million in consumer redress. The proposed order also requires the company to contact current customers and allow them to cancel their enrollment. The company is also required to send refunds to consumers who cancel right after their order is entered. Additionally, the proposed order prohibits the company from misleading consumers about their products, requires the disclosure of total costs and limitations prior to purchase, and requires consumers to provide express informed consent before they are billed. The company must also provide a simple and easy-to-use cancellation method and closely monitor other companies that sell its products.
The FTC also filed separate proposed court orders against the individual defendants (see here and here), which impose similar prohibitions and permanently bans them from playing any role in the sale or marketing of any healthcare-related product or service. The proposed orders also prohibit the former CEO from engaging in deceptive or abusive telemarketing practices, and bans the former vice president of sales from participating in any telemarketing whatsoever in the future.
3rd Circuit adopts new “reasonable reader” standard for evaluating accuracy of credit reports
On August 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an opinion in a matter consolidated on appeal concerning claims of alleged violations of the FCRA brought by several student loan borrowers. According to the opinion, each of the three borrowers defaulted on their student loan payments. The original lenders closed the accounts and transferred the loans to other lenders after the borrowers were more than 120 days late in their payments. The borrowers claimed that a “pay status” notation included in each of their credit reports, which read “Account 120 Days Past Due Date,” was inaccurate and could create the misleading impression that the borrowers were currently four months behind on payments when they did not owe a balance to the previous creditors. The consumer reporting agency (CRA) responsible for the credit reports at issue countered that the notations accurately reflected the historical status of the closed accounts. The borrowers appealed, arguing that the district court misapplied the “reasonable creditor” standard and that the credit reports did not meet the FCRA’s “maximum possible accuracy” requirement.
On appeal, the 3rd Circuit agreed with the CRA’s interpretation, holding that the credit reports “contain multiple conspicuous statements reflecting that the accounts are closed and Appellants have no financial obligations to their previous creditors.” As such, “[t]hese statements are not in conflict with the Pay Status notations, because a reasonable interpretation of the reports in their entirety is that the pay status of a closed account is historical information,” the appellate court wrote. However, while the 3rd Circuit affirmed previous rulings dismissing the cases issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, it concluded that the “reasonable creditor” standard that the district court applied did not accurately reflect how the FCRA contemplates a range of permissible users, such as employers, investors, and insurers, and not just creditors. To account for this, the 3rd Circuit adopted a new standard for evaluating whether credit reports are inaccurate or misleading when read in their entirety by a “reasonable reader,” and applied that test in its precedential opinion. “A court applying the reasonable reader standard to determine the accuracy of an entry in a report must make such a determination by reading the entry not in isolation, but rather by reading the report in its entirety,” the appellate court said.
DOJ resolves SCRA violations with landlords
On August 8, the DOJ announced a settlement with two landlords resolving allegations that they violated the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by obtaining unlawful court judgments against military tenants. The DOJ explained that, under the SCRA, if a landlord files a civil lawsuit against a tenant and the tenant does not appear in court, the landlord must file an affidavit with the court stating whether the tenant is in the military before seeking a judgment. The DOJ further noted that if the affidavit states that the tenant is in military service, the court cannot enter judgment until an attorney is appointed to represent the servicemember. The court must also postpone the case for at least 90 days. According to the DOJ’s complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the property owners allegedly filed false affidavits stating that the servicemembers were “not in military service” and failed to file affidavits of military service, as required by the SCRA, prior to obtaining default judgments against numerous servicemembers. The DOJ further alleged that the property owners had information in their files that would have allowed them to easily verify their tenants’ military status.
The consent decree requires the property owners to pay $162,971 to affected servicemembers and a $62,029 civil penalty to the U.S. The order also requires the property owners to, among other things, vacate the eviction judgments, repair the servicemembers’ credit, and provide SCRA training to their employees. The property owners must also reimburse affected servicemembers for any amounts collected pursuant to an unlawful judgment.
District Court grants final approval to forgive $6 billion in student loans
On November 15, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to a class action settlement to forgive certain federal student loan borrower debt. According to the motion for preliminary approval, the plaintiffs are federal student loan borrowers who filed borrower defense (BD) applications with the Department of Education, requesting that the Department discharge their federal student loans because of misconduct committed by their schools. They brought the case to challenge the Department’s delay in making decisions on BD applications. The motion noted that the plaintiffs alleged, “the Department’s inaction was due to a deliberate and uniform policy abandoning BD decision making, a choice that caused a mounting backlog.” In a supplemental complaint filed after discovery, plaintiffs further alleged that the Department “adopted an unlawful policy that presumptively denied BD applications regardless of their merit, and then, pursuant to this policy, sent tens of thousands of legally insufficient denial notices (the ‘Form Denial Notices’) to borrowers, including some of the Named Plaintiffs.” The class consists of approximately 264,000 people who have a BD application pending as of June 22, 2022. The “automatic relief group” consists of applicants who attended one of more than 150 colleges for which the Department found common evidence of institutional misconduct. The motion also noted “it has determined that every class member whose relevant loan debt is associated with those schools should be provided presumptive relief under the settlement due to strong indicia regarding substantial misconduct by the listed schools, whether credibly alleged or in some instances proven, and the high rate of class members with applications related to the listed schools.” Under the terms of the settlement, $6 billion in loans will be canceled for the borrowers.
Class certification granted in TCPA suit against satellite provider
On August 1, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia granted a plaintiff’s motion for class certification in an action against a satellite TV company (defendant) for allegedly placing unwanted telemarketing robocalls. According to the order, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant retained a communications company to sell the defendant’s services and that the communications company purchased a list of leads and phone numbers from a third party to make telemarketing calls. According to the plaintiffs, the communications company failed to scrub the list for numbers on the national do-not-call list and called those numbers in violation of the TCPA. The district court noted that “[t]here are two overriding questions in this case: (1) whether [the communications company] contacted class members listed on the do-not-call registry; and (2) whether [the defendant] is liable for [the communication company’s] actions.” The district court further noted that “[a]ny individual issues or defenses are limited and easily resolved with aggregate data from defendant []." In agreeing with the “plaintiffs’ contention that this is a ‘model case for the application of the class action mechanism,’” the district court certified a nationwide class of nearly 114,000 individuals whose telephone numbers were listed on the do-not-call list and who received more than one telemarketing call within any 12-month period at any time from the communications company to promote the defendant.
CFPB gets $29.2 million judgment in mortgage relief suit
On August 1, the U.S District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted over $29.2 million to the CFPB, revising a $59 million judgment that was thrown out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit last year. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in July 2021, the 7th Circuit vacated a 2019 restitution award in an action brought by the CFPB against two former mortgage-assistance relief companies and their principals (collectively, “defendants”) for violations of Regulation O. In 2014, the CFPB, FTC, and 15 state authorities took action against several foreclosure relief companies and associated individuals, including the defendants, alleging they made misrepresentations about their services, failed to make mandatory disclosures, and collected unlawful advance fees (covered by InfoBytes here). The district court’s 2019 order (covered by InfoBytes here) held one company and its principals jointly and severally liable for over $18 million in restitution, while another company and its principals were held jointly and severally liable for nearly $3 million in restitution. Additionally, the court ordered civil penalties totaling over $37 million against company two and four principals.
According to the recent opinion and order, the district court concluded that it would be “appropriate” to characterize the redress as legal restitution because the “plaintiff’s claim is against defendants generally and not one, identifiable fund or asset,” calling it “valid and necessary” for consumers to be compensated for the advance fees they paid. Instead of ordering “complete restitution,” the district court noted it would require the defendants to “refund 50% of the moneys paid, which plaintiff shall return directly to the injured parties to the extent practical,” because the 7th Circuit “found that defendants' conduct was not the product of reckless disregard of the CFPA, but rather a failure to fit themselves under an exception for the delivery of legal services.”
11th Circuit reverses class action settlement in TCPA case
On July 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s approval of a class action certification and settlement agreement in an TCPA action after determining that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (covered by InfoBytes here). According to the opinion, the plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging it violated the TCPA by calling and texting her “solely to market its services and products through a prohibited automatic telephone dialing system.” After the case was consolidated, and after negotiating with the defendant, the plaintiffs submitted a proposed class settlement agreement that established a settlement fund of $35 million to the 1.26 million settlement class members, who would receive either a $35 cash payment or a $150 voucher for the defendant’s services. The district court had noted Salcedo v. Hanna, in which the 11th Circuit held “that receipt of a single unwanted text message was not a sufficiently concrete injury to give rise to Article III standing,” and that “the proposed class definition included individuals who received only one text message from [the defendant].” The district court determined that “even though some of the included class members would not have a viable claim in the Eleventh Circuit, they do have a viable claim in their respective Circuit [because of a circuit split]. Thus, [the defendant] is entitled to settle those claims in this class action although this Court would find them meritless had they been brought individually in the Eleventh Circuit”
On appeal, the 11th Circuit noted that TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez held that “every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages.” The appellate court further noted that “TransUnion says that we can’t award damages to plaintiffs who do not have Article III standing. And Article III standing goes to the heart of our jurisdiction to hear cases in the first place. It further stated that the court “cannot … check [its] Article III requirements at the door of the class action. Any class definition that includes members who would never have standing under our precedent is a class definition that cannot stand.”
Court grants final approval of privacy class action settlement
On July 20, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of a class action settlement in a suit against a fintech company alleged to have accessed the personal banking data of users without first obtaining consent, in violation of California privacy, anti-phishing, and contract laws. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the district court granted preliminary approval of the $58 million settlement in November. In granting final approval of the settlement, the court determined it was adequate, and noted that the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendant’s practices breached California’s anti-phishing law was “relatively untested.” In addition to the $58 million settlement fund, the settlement provides for injunctive relief.
Louisiana appellate court affirms district court’s decision in SCRA case
On June 29, the Court of Appeal for the Second District of Louisiana affirmed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a national bank in an SCRA case. According to the opinion, an active duty servicemember and his wife filed for bankruptcy after purchasing a mortgage on a property from a national bank (defendant). The defendant appeared in the bankruptcy proceedings and moved to abandon the property for purposes of eventual foreclosure. The plaintiffs moved out of the state and were granted a discharge under Chapter 7 bankruptcy laws. The defendant has not foreclosed on the property, asserting that the mortgage account remains subject to the protections of the federal SCRA. The plaintiffs filed suit, claiming ownership of the property due to the defendant’s failure to foreclose against them within five years of the abandonment of the property in the bankruptcy, asserting that their obligations under the mortgage are prescribed.
The appellate court agreed that the mortgage account is subject to the protections of the SCRA, which tolls any state prescriptive period for the duration of one’s active-duty military service. According to the opinion, despite “no evidence of repayment” to the bank of any of the underlying mortgage debt, the plaintiffs claimed ownership of the subject property because the bank failed to “foreclose against them within five years of the abandonment of the property in the bankruptcy.” Agreeing with the bank that the mortgage account still remained subject to the protections of the SCRA, the court determined that: (i) the servicemember and his wife “cannot point to any law or jurisprudence that would provide an exception to the mandatory tolling provision of the SCRA [50 U.S.C. § 3936] in these circumstances;” (ii) the couple “never executed a waiver of rights form”; (iii) the “five-year prescriptive period [under Louisiana law] has been tolled on the mortgage” for the entirety of the servicemember’s active-duty military service; and (iv) the bank’s time to foreclose on the subject property “has not prescribed, as the prescriptive period has not started to run.” The appellate court concluded that the couple’s “obligations on the mortgage have not been extinguished, and they are not the owners of the subject property.”